A recently qualified solicitor who misled clients for more than a year about how their probate cases were progressing has been struck off.

Rachel Parker, admitted in 2019, misled clients and colleagues at national firm Buckles and a bank until November 2023, consistently pledging that she was chasing up outstanding matters when there was no evidence of this. After complaints were received she gave notice to resign in December 2023. The firm investigated her handling of probate matters and informed the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Parker made an agreed outcome with the SRA to be struck off and this was rubber-stamped by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal last month.

The tribunal heard that on eight separate matters, Parker falsely said she had submitted applications for grants of probate and had chased with the Probate Registry for progress updates on these applications.

On one occasion, she emailed her paralegal colleague stating that a client had signed probate papers and that an application had been submitted, with a wait of between 16 and 20 weeks before the grant was issued. In fact, no such application was made until after she left the firm.

Clients expressed their anger at the delays: one had been expecting grant of probate to come through any day after being assured the application had been filed, and they were ‘incredibly disappointed’ to find out it was not submitted.

Parker, 35, admitted dishonestly trying to concealing her mistakes in a way that was deliberate, calculated and repeated. In mitigation not agreed with the SRA, she pointed to a previously exemplary regulatory and disciplinary history and said she had made no personal gain from her misconduct. She claimed to have been experiencing mental health challenges, including symptoms consistent with anxiety and depression, which were exacerbated by ’excessive workloads, personal stressors, and a lack of adequate support at work’. 

She was struck off the roll and agreed to pay £5,000 costs.

In a statement in response to Parker’s allegation of a lack of support, Buckles said: 'We respect that the tribunal process allows individuals to present their circumstances in full, and we would never wish to diminish the very real difficulties that mental health challenges can present. However, we must respectfully but firmly contest the suggestion that a lack of support contributed to these events. Buckles Solicitors has well-established wellbeing and line management support structures in place for every member of our firm, regardless of seniority, and those remain available to all our people, at any time, which were used in this case. When this incident came to our attention, we immediately reported it to the SRA. We wish the individual concerned well, and we now consider the matter closed.'